Outing the Accidental Authoritarian

Site Menu

Operation Charlie Sheen

The NeoConsevative nexus (e.g. where the GOP and the Democrats always agree) that collectively are the “War Party” should call their interventionist agenda in the Middle East “Operation Sheen”.

That’s “Sheen”, as in “Charlie Sheen”.

Because just like the actor at the prime of his melt-down, in the face of complete an utter evidence that what the War Party doing is 1) self-destructive, 2) counterproductive, and 3) creating increasingly worse problems than when they started in 1991, they still think they’re “Winning!” with their Mid East policy and want to pile on more.

Destroyed liberty at home? “Winning!”

Destabilized Mid East? “Winning!”

Radicalized Iraq? “Winning!”

Arab Spring? “Winning!”

More Israelis Settlements in disputed territory? “Winning!”

Thousands of Christians and Jews displaced from their century-old homelands throughout the mid east thanks to the instability? Many Christian churches burned and Christians massacred? “Winning!”

Secular Mid East governments toppled and replaced with more radical governments? “Winning!”

Moderate and Western friendly Islam massacred? “Winning!”

Trillions of debt at home hanging around the necks of our kids and grand-kids amid a stagnating economy? “Winning!”

Blow-back terrorism at home? “Winning!”

etc.? “Winning!”

It is true that you can apply the Charlie Sheen principal to most all U.S. foreign policy initiatives, and even domestic policy.

There is much Irony that so many among the Tea-Party War-hawk proletariat (who I call the “Patriot Wing” of the Tea Party) are able to identify this “Winning!” failure-principal very clearly within most of the progressive agenda. They are quick to criticize a progressive push to expand government stupidity when it’s from Dem’s, and are relentless in harassing the GOP’s dramatic acquiescence to those demands — a.k.a, calling them out as RHINOs. But they fail to see the hypocrisy in that the Patriot Wing is as enamored as any RHINO politician with implementing their own busy-body agenda.

Indeed, there is much to criticize with what they are criticizing from the RHINO progressives: The backpedaling cuckservative support of the failed entitlement state, where the GOP is as much to blame for allowing the government to confiscate wealth from the functioning economy so that it may run a highly-politicized, no-strings-attached form of charity, with government unions planting themselves as middlemen who entitled to their above-market wages and benefits; a well-feathered nest so heavily conflicted with self-interest, any sober bystander is left to question if the failures / growth of poverty is not merely a well-crafted business growth plan.

While the RHINOs may not have been the original architects, they fall all over themselves to appear friendly to the worst of the poverty-pimp politicians, all in a desperate attempt to capture some of the influence-peddling benefits gained by handouts. The Patriot Wing sees it’s financed by We The People’s confiscated liberty and wealth in exchange for votes, and their is little doubt among Tea Partiers of where RHINO priorities lie.

These are endless and obvious failures, yet the progressive drumbeat is always for more intervention — each new policy at the expense of other Americans as they rob Peter’s economy to subsidize Paul’s.

To resurrect the Meme: The War on Poverty? Failures? Corruption? Endless calls for larger and larger expenditures, etc.?? “Winning!”

And yet, although the Patriot Wing and many other hawkish GOP supporters identify this folly, they seem to go blind when it comes to foreign intervention. When confronted about the failures of the Mid East policy they support, you’ll see a reflex of denial. You’ll find excuses or claims to non-existant victory. And you’ll hear demands for throwing more good money after bad, no different than Bernie Sanders calling for more socialism to fix what the socialism we already have has broken.

U.S. Foreign policy supported by the Tea Party Patriots? Winning! They are more like Hillary than Ron Paul who functionally seeded the concept of the Tea Party.

Exposed, U.S. foreign policy leaders remain in denial of the warnings given 25-years ago by well-reasoned analysts on the folly of the Neoconservative policy agenda as outlined by prominent NeoCons well before Iraq 1, the infamous Project for the New American Century , 9/11. supported by the usual suspects — Kagen, Kristol, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Cheny, Rumsfeld, etc. It is in denial of the warnings they gave about destabilizing, sanctioning, and then toppling the secular regime of Saddam Hussein. It remains in denial of every warning since.

If you don’t see this, it’s time to take off the rose colored glasses.

2 thoughts on “Operation Charlie Sheen”

Kenneth Libby Commented on: September 13, 2015

Dear LB

I’m looking for more examples of where industries have regulated themselves, to stabilize their business environments, to push out back actors and those businesses that do not act in good faith, as barriers to entry (like you referred to in your Debunking article) and in some cases to supersede the government agencies since the businesses know better what is really going on in their industries and how to manage them. If you have other sources and historical references for me, i would deeply appreciate it!

So sorry for only noticing your response. The blog is very much a hobby and given I rarely if ever get comments, I simply missed yours given I’ve been so busy with life, I’ve not posted since May last year. My humble apologies. Hopefully you get this.

The answer really depends upon what you mean about “self-regulating”.

Your list cites “bad actors” and those “that do not act in good faith”. The answer lies in who is the victim. If it is a customer, we’re talking about basic contract enforcement or perhaps defending against outright fraud or theft. Generally, the laws of the land have been very good at defending victims of broken contracts and prosecuting those who have engaged in consumer fraud, etc. These are clear violations of consent. That is the sole legitimate role of government, IMO, to protect the right of consent of those whose right to it is violated.

With that as context, those businesses that are best at being good actors with their clients, they succeed the most. They provide the best bang for the buck and their clients reward them – but not out of charity, but out of self-interest since the client gets what they want — improved standard of living, etc.

In situations where is seems like bad actors get away with it or consumers are always getting screwed, generally you’ll find associated legislation titled in their favor that exempts them to violate to the extent allowed. For example, the Cable TV regional monopolies were famous for their abuse of customers and their “take it or leave it” approach to client satisfaction, destroying their reputation to the point where folks in their 40s and older who remember the old way will almost always choose satellite or non-cable fiber when granted the option. More recently we see how Uber has delighted consumers frustrated by the regional cab cartels that once boxed out all competition. If you want a fine read, I recommend going to the Yelp site and looking up the Pittsburgh Yellow Cab company to see just how bad their service was when the Public Utility Commission of PA prohibited any and all non-politically approved competition from being in the region. They were famous for accepting scheduled rides and never showing up close to the assigned time, if at all. You can imagine how well that sat with the average Airport fare! Thankfully for Pittsburgh Uber simply ignored the anti-competition laws (dressed up as consumer protection) and built up consumer good will so rapidly that the politicians knew they’d be voted out of office if they stuck by their old crony ways on the subject of cabs. Yellow cab immediately upped their service dramatically, even creating their own ride app, etc. But the damage was done. If the PUC took away what remains of their government granted privilege re preventing competition, they’d likely go out of business due to a half century of bad acting at consumers’ expense.

Regarding more complex issues like environmental protection from bad actors who would ruin the environment, again we’re discussing an issue of consent. This time it’s rooted in property rights. I don’t want my air, water or land polluted. We as citizens, property owners do not want it. We don’t consent, so corporate owners must abide. Violations are punished for violating consent, not the environment, on its own.

One last item: when it comes to economics and examples, familiarize yourself with the idea of the “seen and unseen” first formally posited by Frederic Bastiat, later elaborated on by Freiderich Hayek, the broken window fallacy, etc. It’s always very easy to point to the consequences of massive policy intervention and the redirection of $ billions use to achieve policy ends. However, it’s nearly impossible to guess or demonstrate what those $ billions would have produced in the private sector had they not been confiscated and then redirected.

I bring that up because it’s a cousin to a functioning mostly free market economy: by its nature it is consumer driven self-regulation. Businesses either meet consumer demand or they don’t. The former succeed depending on how well they satisfy, and the opposite for the latter. This is prima facie.

I suppose there is one last thing: how do you define bad actors. Depending on one’s world view, this can mean a lot of different things to different people. Views on labor, unions, emerging market conditions in labor, etc. can influence one’s opinion. I evaluate on consent-based transaction and go from there. Not everything is black or white, though some things clearly are.